The Narrow Path 9/29

Good afternoon and welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg were alive for an hour each week afternoon taking your calls as we, as you call them and you can ask questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith. If you'd like and will talk about it or you can call because you disagree with the host on something that's always a possibility to and the number to call is 844-484-5730 7F 844-484-5737 tonight I'm speaking in Buckeye Arizona which is for those of you who don't know any letters on that solution Phoenix area and anyone near enough to care about this announcement already knows that Buckeye is near Phoenix because you might be Phoenix listener whose might like like to join us tonight. I'm grew speaking about the kingdom of God and actually couple of lectures with a break in the middle that are going to be based on my new book on the kingdom of God, which by the way, is not out yet but it will be out on October 15, Lord willing and available. Anyway, I'm in the home of our hosts here and they've Andy and Shauna Gonzales and their five children have had a sinner. How many times we've even held meetings in their homes and their wonderful children are sitting around me even now. And once in a while you may hear Asher or Jade are calling on the show they are among these five children here and when they call they usually call me grandpa that were not really related, but were kind like surrogate grandparents to them. So were glad to be with them just like to say that so that they get excited about the mention of the radio and now want to talk to callers were all mostly our lives are mostly full. So did mention some other names on the radio like that of Jerry in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Jerry welcome to the narrow path is calling my old together that I ever question it to Gloria. Matthew 1127 and 30 and this is about tonight.

God, our God, don't animate through the name of Jesus and out loud. I'll read this. All things have been delivered to me speaking my father and no one knows the son that the father nor does anyone know the father the son means we don't know the father and son may be pleased to reveal him.

So I don't get knowledge of the father except through Jesus and then he said come to me and if any, is emphasizing an outcome, all you who are maybe burned and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you at Jesus is yoke which courses across and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls at several rest rest for my soul rest in my soul it's okay to question Jesus. As for my yoke is easy and my burden is light. My question is can I pray to God you know when Jesus said you should pray he said when you pray, say, our father which art in heaven, so obviously that's that's God the father. He's talking about. So that's who were supposed to pray to this passage isn't very much about prayer.

I suppose it might have some ramifications to prayer but is mainly about relationship.

He says no one knows the father except the son and those to whom the son wills to reveal him. And so I think that really part reveal I don't get to the father except the son revealed. The only medial father right. Jesus reveals the father to those who believe in him that's the idea here is that Jesus is talking to a bunch of Jewish people who all know about God. They've they've gone synagogues into the temple all the time from the time the young they've heard about God different Scriptures, but they don't know anything.

Nobody knows God except me and anyone I reveal him to now he reveals the father to the disciples or we could even say the father reveals himself to the disciples.

You might remember when Peter said to Jesus, you are the Christ, the son of the living God at Caesarea Philippi.

When Jesus asked who do you say I am and Jesus said to Peter, blessed art, are you Peter because flesh and blood has not revealed this to my father which is in heaven. So the idea is that if a person is a follower of Christ, and that being a disciple of his then he reveals the father to his father, reveals himself to us that as we get we get a revelation of who he is. Now this different from most of the Jewish leaders in Jesus day and that they didn't follow Jesus and they didn't recognize Jesus as the son of God, so they could talk about God but didn't know God it's it's possible for someone to know a lot about the Bible or a lot about God and not really have any relationship with him.

That's what Jesus is talking about when he talks about.

No one knows the father except the son and whoever the son reveals him all right.

I appreciate your call. Let's talk to Lucan Scottsdale, Arizona. Luke welcome to the narrow path extra calling yes is looking forward all the Phoenix Arizona with, for you is about first Corinthians 15. It has to do with the potholes so in verse five talking about you you you died. And he rose again. According to the Scriptures that after that, he was seen by Cephas for 12 and over in verse seven. After that, you would think by James and Dan, by all the apostles. Gary mentioned 12 apostles in the number 70 by all the apostles you think you can keep her there more than 12 apostles. Now when he says he was seen by the 12 is not actually speak of the 12 as 12 actual individuals there because actually Thomas was not there when on the occasion calls referring to Thomas didn't see Jesus and Judas wasn't there either. So Judas and Thomas were absent and there were only 10, but Paul referred to them as the 12 because I was sort of technical term for the apostolic group. The ones that got Jesus a chosen 12 and I guess having 10 of them. There constitute a quorum enough that Paul could say he had appeared to the apostles which are also referred to as the 12, but even if 12 or not there are still the 12 that the group is the 12 and so he met with the group apostles, even though a couple of the members of the group were not present on that occasion. But when his mentors and then to all the apostles. He is saying he he met with him again but this time, all of them were there so he's kind of implying in a way that when Jesus met with the 12 they weren't all there and it is strangely said the 12, but if you said the 10 it would've made much sense, and he could've said the apostles, but it was still if he wanted to be exact, would have saved less to never to missing using the term the 12, and the term upon the apostles at that point interchangeably would be would not necessarily require obviously that the hold 12 be there in order for the group to be in a sense gathered so it's it's misleading because if were thinking numerically of the 12 rather than them. As the title for the for the group for the gathering of Jesus, a chosen now. Of course later in the book of acts. There were other apostles Paul himself also. There is also of course Matthias was made an apostle and even some of the other people like Timothy and Titus. Certainly Barnabas is referred to as an apostle. In acts chapter 13 so there's a lot of apostles of various kinds, but there is only the 12 who made up the special apostolic band that Paul is referring to when he says the 12 see if it said all the apostles. Maybe people would mistakenly thought that he was there because he was not one of the 12, but he was an apostle soberness of the 12.

He might've set it that way. In order to indicate those apostles not not including me that the 12 the Jesus a chosen but again, he's been loose with the number he knew very well that Judas was there everybody to let Judas and I'm sure that Paul only knew that that Thomas was not there also and so I think he's just using the term generically helpful. Thanks. Okay.

Look will see tonight – but okay Donald in Portland, Oregon. Welcome to the narrow path extra calling their gentlemen as strong when the state a Christian could not be give a crap the abortion and that you are Christian, you won't bow Democrat now going to get you on that you can copy and you can also bring in Scripture that I can read well. You have an outfit there okay thank you for your call. I like to give any scripture about going Democrat or Republican or any other party because they didn't really vote in biblical times. Comments about it and they certainly didn't have those parties, but if someone says that Christian can't vote Democrat. I think what they're saying is that when you do vote for a candidate you are in a sense ordaining that person to office. The Bible says that those who are leaders of the country are ordained by God. But in some countries like ours there ordained through the instrumentality of people who vote for them in Jesus day. Paul's day people to vote, so they know people became kings otherwise like killing the previous king for just being the son of the previous king or something like that we live in a society where you do vote and therefore the voters are in a sense installing the officers just like in the early church. They installed the elders by the laying on of hands so we installed officers of the government through our votes. Now Paul when he did talk about ordaining leaders in the church and laying on hands is don't be hasty to lay hands on a one neither be a partaker in another man's sense and what he meant by that is if you ordained somebody in this case determined as a leader of the church, then whatever sins they do, they did with your commissioning. They did it with your approval. You're the one who put them in a position, and in a society where government officials are put into by us, the voters, then there's a sense in which the person I vote for. I'm putting my approval on them in some measure. Now that this man putting my approval on them as a Christian is that they are Christians, we often don't even have a real Christian running for office, but many times one candidate will stand for something that Christians can approve of, or another candidate will stand for something Christians find important like like abortion now for example if there's a possibility that one candidate will promote abortion or or will allow abortion to continue and another candidate perhaps will not, then the candidate that will is one that a Christian should of course not support because then the person who votes that person office will share the guilt will have blood on their hands for for installing with their own vote. A person that they know is going to kill babies mistress that's how that at this point in time the Democratic Party is all for that. I don't know if there's any Democrats that are against killing babies right now so that I think there used to be when I was younger there were Democrats that were Christians and help to Christian standards on most things, but the parties change. Let it be like saying by the way, I did let you know I'm not a Republican, I'm a little I maybe lean a little toward libertarianism and Republicanism, but I'm really an independent I'm not a Democrat and that's like saying I'm not a Marxist because the left has taken over the Democratic Party in such a way that unless a Christian believes Marxism is a good thing by the way, Marxism is anti-Christian by definition an atheistic, but if someone thinks that the Marxism is a good thing then voting for it would be a good choice, but I don't think Christians consider that to be a good thing now I'm into something more complex than blood.

We do have certain freedoms. For example, that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution, and if there is a candidate who we think will uphold the Constitution, then were dealing with someone who is more honest than a candidate that we know will not and so I don't think we want to vote for any candidate that's gonna take an oath saying he'll uphold the Constitution, then it could just ignore it. The rest of his term in office as many have-nots Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of that. I'm not. I'm not here.

I'm not a shill for the for the Republican Party, but I would say there are not very many things that that the right stands for officially that are really objectionable to me as a Christian, and there are a lot of things that the left stands for that objectionable to me that the Bible doesn't think about voting, but it does say that we as Christians are supposed be promoters of justice and righteousness. We pray for it and we we should be doing what we can to promote it and therefore on those occasions were read to have occasion to vote or have the opportunity, I think we should vote for those candidates or parties or whatever. Even if I don't belong to party. Now I want to vote for people who will stand up for justice and one uphold the Constitution and not that the Constitution is inspired by God, or thing, but it is the law of the land and every candidate was elected and set taken an oath, usually with a hand on the Bible workaround nowadays and says they're going uphold the Constitution. Yet you know very well there's people who don't believe in the Bible and they don't believe in God and the and and if they belong to a certain party, which is turn far left, then they're not going uphold the Constitution either. So my thought is that while I wouldn't say that it I wouldn't say that a Christian can't vote Democrat because of the word Democrat because they belong to Christian Democrats in the past and history. But the Democratic Party today is not what it was in history. Democratic Party today is simply a socialistic left wing. Frankly, anti-constitutional movement, and I don't think I could look for that as a Christian.

If you can follow your conscience but I I would have great difficulty doing that. I appreciate your call. Let's talk to David from Moorpark, California David, welcome to the neuropathic for calling oh you call your Moorpark or even waiting a long time again in the room.

Okay, good. No, no driving kind of think I might be the geography lesson which is not. Let's move on to your question and the nature of my center anyway you have tragically killed in a car that's correct might make was that 30 years ago for you at the moment. Well let me just ask is you are as I recall a Seventh-day Adventist correct. I definition of what happened with no I didn't ask you that you are sent Dennis correct I say so if that's if that's your belief you should be since the yes I am I in the Bible. Okay then you not to be honest with you could've said no. If you're not a subject that you want say yes if you won't answer me honestly on your off the air. Thanks for calling. Okay, let's talk to Frank in North Texas Frank. Welcome to the narrow path.

Thanks for calling Frank going once, going twice.

Frank you there may have a bad line that I Frank if you want a bad line I can't hear you call back may give him a different line.

My apologies for hanging up can keep Jonathan Kentucky Joe in Seattle, Washington. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling Joe. Joe yes oh, I think a simple question asked 26 verse 32 and there in front of the grip interested in obeying judge and Agrippa said to Festus, this man might have been set free. If he had not appealed to Caesar and so we know that Paul is trying to get the wrong that appeal to Caesar's suite of entries going to get him to wrong so my my question is if he had not appealed to Caesar. He could've gone the romance of freedom and right correct that he make a mistake in judgment. Well I do know it's awfully hard to tell if Paul made a mistake when things can be commerce one way or another way, even in going to Jerusalem before he got arrested there. There were people in churches telling them not to go and tell them that God didn't want to go and yet he felt God wanting to go so we went and got arrested and he got stuck in prison for four years. A lot of people think that was a mistake on his part and it might've been Christians to make mistakes, but God does work out all things together for good. Sometimes if you make a mistake, things get a little more which was a complicated and going to jail and staying in jail for as long as he did complicated things that didn't prevent him from getting to Rome which is where God wanted to go.

You're right if he had not appealed to Caesar. According to Agrippa.

In that passage he could've been released.

He could cut a ship to Rome and gone. There's a free man course he didn't know that he didn't even know Agrippa ever be in the picture you see Felix and Festus both knew he was innocent and both could have released him. But they didn't want to Festus, Felix, were told wanted to please the Jews. So he left Paul in prison even though he knew he was innocent. Festus is trying to Rome. He had Paul and Trollope all appealed to Caesar their help. All appeal to Caesar not so we could go to Rome he appeal to Caesar because he didn't want to be released to the Jews what Festus said is are you willing to go to Jerusalem and retried with by the Jews.

He knew they'd kill them if he went down their sources. Now I get appeal to Caesar which is ironic that the pagan Caesar who happened to be Nero at the time a very wicked Caesar. Paul is quite sure you get more fair trial from him than from the Jews.

Some tells how much he thought about the Jewish courts, and how fair they were, but he he appealed to go to Rome, not because that's how he intended to get to Rome, he would've liked to been released. Instead, I got around that way.

But he didn't want to go back to Jerusalem and killed by the Jews so he appeal to Caesar, which was his right and you you he gets Rome. That way, instead of another way, so 11 follow-up for primary over next 2311 cries basically says to Paul, you will deliver the gospel in wrong and so isn't that a guarantee or should not have been a guaranty in Paul's mind that would eventually going to make it to Rome alive right okay okay yeah and I was going to happen.

I don't know that he knew it was good. At that point he didn't know was to be by him appealing to Caesar, you, I think I think appealing to Caesar was kind of an emergency measure because he was about to be released to those who were planning to kill him, so he was under protective custody of the Romans as his travel to Rome and I'm sure that Paul realize at that point all what Jesus did, says going to Rome I guess is I'm going to Rome and changed as a prison I okay Joe, thanks for your call rights. Let's talk to Orlando in Bell Gardens, California, and if if the break interruptus will carry over to the other side hello I okay what I want to know how many are there. I don't have an unit coming or do we go to paradise you will go to paradise with okay what will given a lot of detail about that Paul referred to the third heavens is paradise and second Cricket chapter 12. He said he was caught up in the third heavens even into paradise. But paradise is a generic term. It even referred to the Garden of Eden. I mean it's paradise. It's like like when we say paradise we can talk about more than one place and say what this really paradise. We made the word paradise is a Persian word and means a beautiful garden and so Jesus referred to where this man was going. The man on the cross with him as a paradise and Paul also was caught up in the third heaven, he called that paradise or an that doesn't mean they're the same location but most people believe part of most people. Most people believe that Paul was caught up into the third heaven meeting where the throne of God is and they believe that the reason is called the third heaven is because in the Bible.

The atmosphere around the earth is called heaven and in the starry skies are called heaven to and so the third heaven would be beyond the atmosphere beyond the stars, or at least transcendent to the spiritual realm were God dwells and that's why it's called the third heaven is only one heaven.

The people go to when they die.

And when I can live there forever.

Jesus is in heaven, and if we go to heaven if we die go to heaven were going to be there only until Jesus comes back to bring us back with him to live in the new earth which is the guy who's the guy was on the cross probably didn't go to heaven.

He probably went into the grave. Many Christians believe that in shale or Hades. There were two compartments. One of them called paradise and the other one was a place of torment. So this is much disputed and there's not anything very clear in the Bible to answer your question about that song after leaving unanswered.

I need to take a break, but we have another half-hour coming up listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. We are listener supported. You go to our website and you can donate if you want to do everything's free website is the narrow path.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds nearly the path that leads to life into the narrow path. Steve Grant has nothing to do everything to get the radio show is over. Go to the narrow path.com you can study and enjoy the three topical audio teaching blog article teachings and archives of narrow path radiation. Thank you for supporting the listeners.

The narrow path that Steve Grant went the narrow path.com all right were back one back to the narrow path Steve Greg and we are live for another half-hour taking your calls.

We have a liner to open if you'd like to join us. The number is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and I want to remind our Arizona listeners that I am broadcasting from Arizona from Buckeye right now and I'm speaking and parquet tonight and in Tucson tomorrow so will be in Arizona two nights in a row speaking if you're interested in that you can go to our website. The narrow path.com and click on the tab that says announcements and you can scroll down to two nights date which is September 29 and tomorrow's 30th and see where were speaking if you're in Arizona can join us if you're in Texas will be coming down there in less than a week from now. I think so will be glad to see you summer meetings there either in Spring Branch or in Houston or Dallas areas I see in Houston we have a meeting in his wheels have a meeting in chocolate Bayou which is in Houston area and our good friend Steve on as a pastor there and were going to be in his church were in some home meetings as well.

All those meetings are listed at our website. The narrow path.com under the tab that says announcements all right. Our next caller today is Martin from national city, California Martin, welcome to the night about 33 women would be childless among women that concur with testing. Thank you bye-bye why don't know. I don't know that that speaks to the issue of abortion directly because that King had killed adult sons of women amid those women childless and so his mother be childless by him being killed. There's no specific reference here to unborn children, but there's plenty in the Bible.

That's against murder and we know that a child whether it's inside or outside the womb is a human being and when you murder an innocent human being that's murder and and there's a terrible penalty for murder in the Old Testament and there is a terrible penalty for murder unless people who don't. So repent before they die when they meet God as well but abortion is deftly the killing of a human being. It stops the human beating heart, which is beating human blood growing organism that has human DNA is a human, and so we know that that's wrong and this but I don't know that the verse you use speaks directly to it and so I think that if you are arguing with somebody about abortion from the Bible. They probably could find their way around the wording of that verse. If you if you use that one on them. Okay, let's talk to Sir Richard from seal Beach, California Richard, welcome to the narrow path extra calling no Christians right of the mother here because it's a medical procedure and when the rapture comes because that could be dead in Christ will rise first. So it seems to me like paradise would be the new Jerusalem content on both of those.

Thank you Steve got paradise is called paradise. In the book of Revelation. I mentioned that there are several things called paradise. The new Jerusalem is called paradise.

In Revelation chapter 3, I guess it is a chapter 2 is called the paradise of God.

When Paul talks about paradise. He referred to the third heaven, which of course is not the new Jerusalem. Jerusalem is on earth, and there's abusive. So yes I think that's supports the idea that paradise has many meanings in different places to be. So what was in the question I forgot what your question was someone in the room, not as a previous, oh okay okay I'm sorry I forgot your second your first question, I was distracted and that's not all it's okay yes if a woman's life is in danger, you know, in a tubal pregnancy. It does seem to me that taking the baby out of the tube where it cannot survive and where will kill the mother. If it doesn't if it's not removed, would have a there's a case can be made medically for that and that doesn't mean it's not a human. And I think I think a woman should be able to decide if she wants to give her life for the baby. Some women might or if she should have that removed that I believe that a zygote is a human life, but obviously if a human life is threatening another human life. Then once to die, and I think since there's no hope for the zygote in the two to live if you live then to spare the life of the living one. The mother would make sense it's a that's a actually a moral dilemma. For those of us who believe that it fertilized egg is a human, but again people were pro-life don't believe that there's no reason at all to ever take a human life. We believe in capital punishment.

For example, for sets of guilty parties zygote is not guilty but the point is, it's not going to live in any case, and it'll kill another human being. If it's allowed to live, so it's hard, very hard, I don't know if every Christian who said pro-life would would answer the same as I do, but it seems to me that that would be something unique case. Now most most pregnancies don't endanger the woman's life. Maybe there are some that do succeed like a in a real emergency, were actually delivering the baby would be predicted to hurt the woman or kill.

Or maybe that's cesarean section or something like that could be done but I'm no medical expert, so I'm not I don't know what all the options are. But I think that is for taking the baby when it could not otherwise live and and where it will otherwise kill the mother would be something where I'm I personally would probably draw the line and allowing allowing that to take place. But I don't know that in the developing fetus in the womb very often is really a danger to the mother's life that I am, but I can't say it never is.

In which case I would hope to try something else. If it's a you know if if it's not old enough to survive outside the womb with medical attention that obviously taken by sincere and is not an option, so there may be really hard choices that they made about that and I would imagine just as most women when they have spontaneous abortions from the miscarriages. They usually are very sad to lose the child I would think that a case like that is conservative or tragic thing to have to take the baby up and if you lose the baby and the mother or just the mother exterior just a baby then I suppose it's those dilemmas someone have to make the call. According the conscious, but I would think that saving mother's life would be a reasonable thing in a case like that all right see Jason from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Welcome. I was wondering what your pinion on the Col. or mentor not well this comes up a lot on the program and partly because I've written a book on the three views of hell and partly because I have some lectures online about the three is also people who are thinking about how sometimes come across my lectures or my book.

I have not made a firm commitment myself.

I will tell you this I in the first 45 years of my life which is the first 30 years of my ministry. I was firmly in the camp of eternal torment. I had never heard a good biblical case for an interview and I didn't feel it probably was one seem to me there are some verses that's immediately came to my mind that sounded like eternal torments and that was held by all the Christians I knew, so I just got accepted but once I did study out. I realized first all eternal torment is not the only view the Christians of help from the early days the church and that there are some good scriptural arguments for other views to when I did some research a lot of research actually on it and found all the arguments for all the views I realized that the eternal torment you actually had the weakest arguments, which means it probably all other things being equal, is not correct as far scriptures it doesn't have many scriptures in his favor. But both of the, the conditional immortality or annihilation view and the universal reconciliation view with the restoration. Those views have a lot of scriptures on their side are not likely to both be true.

Which means that somebody is using Scripture the wrong way, but that's just the way this was some controversy wishes whether your time or Calvinism, Arminianism, or whether talking about end times controversy views everyone has the same Bible about not even understand some of the verses that are relevant in the same way. So it's a matter of study and I have studied it, but my studies have left me undecided because as soon as I think I'm going to support one particular view. I think again of the arguments that exist for one of the other views I rise another pretty good to. It seems to me the Bible is not clear on it and if if it is seems to me if it is clear in the minds of some, is it would be the eternal torment view weakest and one of the others would have to be the one that is clearly taught. Seems to me because there's only like five verses in the Bible that sound like they teach eternal torment and three of them are in the book of Revelation, which is the most symbolic book of the Bible and two of them are in the parable of the sheep and the goats, which is also a parable and therefore these are not straightforward, didactic passages of Scripture where God is teaching us something about how these are statements that are found in symbolic passages and I'm not saying there can't be literal, eternal torment. I'm just saying that's the only context in which you find any reference to it, and there are lots of places in the Bible, we find reference to death or perishing or even the idea that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, ultimately those those and many other passages like a great number raise questions about the traditional view, but so that you don't just think I'm dodging the issue of the truth is I don't feel like I have to know although I've studied it out.

I think that the II think that the conditional immortality view and the restorations you have a lot more scriptural support than the traditional view and that is just the exact reversal from what I taught for the first 25 years my ministry what you think about and to learn about fiery well he doesn't use the word hell uses the word Gehenna shall be in danger of hell fire are Gehenna fires Gehenna. The word Gehenna is only in the new test is only used by Jesus except that James uses at once when he talks of how the tongue is set on the fires Gehenna which is opposite figure of speech. But Jesus talks to people going to Gehenna and are being fire and worms and things like that and most commentators think that Gehenna refers to hell. Although the word hell is not related logically to Gehenna, Gehenna has an actual meaning in the Greek it means the valley of hell and there actually is a valley of him just outside Jerusalem.

So there's a very real possibility that although our Bibles translated with the English word hell when in fact the Bible uses the word Gehenna. There it might be referred to the Valley pendulum and that's where dead corpses were thrown when Jerusalem was invaded first by the Babylonians back in the days of Jeremiah he spoke about the corpses being thrown into Gehenna, into the valley and then Jesus was anticipating the Romans doing the same thing therein to come and destroy Jerusalem and Jesus spoke the people being thrown into Gehenna so it could be that that's not even referred to help could be referred to Gehenna successor Jesus is with me is valid him, but I have a chapter on that in my book.

If you're interested in my thoughts about how I have 300 page book.

It's called all you want to let hell. Three Christian views and I idea I have a chapter on Gehenna in the chapter on well Lazarus and the rich man was people offering up but I also give all the scriptural arguments for each of the three views and most or all of the arguments against them. So it's it's really just a study in the pros and cons of the three views okay Jason, thanks for your call all right word talk next to Sharon from Apache Junction, Arizona. I have stayed in Apache Junction not to turn me okay just fine thinking okay good thank you and thank God for giving you with standing there because I learned a lot from listing to your station. I try to listen everything the question about the age of accountability, I can't find anything in God's word out that and you know, I wonder about it because no one you know, the flood, and no guy didn't say children and women and Sodom and Gomorrah. There's nothing in there about him saving you now, children because they walked to the age of accountability, and anything about not, I actually actually do believe in the age of accountability, but I don't believe that that means that children don't die. It really has to do with whether, when God judges on the last day whether he counts them guilty of the sins they committed or whether he gives them something of a pass because they didn't know any better. There are some things about that but it but even if we could fully establish the age of accountability. It wouldn't suggest that children don't die in disasters soon and you know when when Jerusalem was destroyed in and when any nations destroyed children die as well as adults.

But that's not that really doesn't address the question of whether gods send them to hell or condemn them at the judgment. That's the issue in Isaiah chapter 7 there is an interesting statement in prophecy that Isaiah made about a child that she'll be born, and he says in verse 16, Isaiah 716 for before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good. Bob Loblaw goes on but notice it talks that there's a time when a child knows and prior to that it does not know to refuse the evil and choose the good. It's a recognition that children are not born knowing good from evil. They actually have to reach a certain age of that now doesn't say what that age is and I wouldn't I wouldn't suggest that I know what age that is not there are like Jesus said, suffer the little children to come unto me to not forbid them because of such is the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. So he said that little children belong to the children are people like little children.

There's no one like little children as much as little children and little child that dealt yeah, something is not really Tony doesn't tell a thing about an age of accountability just suggest that little children are that they belong to him and they belong to him. Certainly better not to be sent to hell. But Emily H. Children reach an age where they become aware that their choosing the right thing or the wrong thing and when they reach that age. Then when they choose the wrong that's when they become responsible for the choices children my understand now God's word and earlier age having some children may be maybe at age 3. There there. Some may be six.

I don't know, children develop at different rates in terms of spiritual aptitude and intelligence, and other things like that. Of course there's children with disabilities. Children who are mentally challenged to write never outgrow their childish innocence, even though they grow up their minds to serve God.

We we might look for specific times and dates and ages and stuff. We don't have any information about that but with a different age of accountability anyway because we different.

We couldn't, but that is me. God can't, God ever was different, but God knows each individual and so he knows it's always at that age are not all understand fully now. Thank you for that. My mind are well not agrees with me.

Something I think I sent you wrong your smarter before you. I know right okay Sherry, I thank you, thank you for your call.

You have a nice thank you for my call and got a good day to thank you okay we talk next to Mark from Vancouver BC I think Mark called recently and didn't get because his shows. Article #like dyslexia. Questionable logic is related to a Bible topic no time keeping procedures second minutes, hours and days is only become precise and very recent times. So if you go back €6000 or 4000 years or even 2000 years, would you not say that it would be absolutely impossible to suggest that they could keep it accurately out or just give us little point before you answer a person if society only lost one second per day, day after day only take about 200 years to lose a full 24 hour period correct question is with you.

Nothing is absolute nonsense for secretary of the state.

The seventh day has to be Saturday or you would have to be Sunday when that fact that I just mentioned. This is undeniable. Well I would say it's my go unnoticed if we lost a minute or second or 10 minutes out of the day. I don't know how young people living through time. They know if it's day or night. They know 24 hours has gone by, or not. I don't think they've ever lost track of that may be interesting Sunday living a certain time and not know the 24 hours passed since since the previous day because day and night measure 25. I don't know that they don't know how exactly timekeeping methods were, but I do believe that for example of the Jews kept the Sabbath and I really see you're making a point that I agree with that is Sabbath keeping is not mandatory today, but if if the Jews have kept the Sabbath ever since they were never made a nation at Mount Sinai that would be every week you have to miss a whole week or several days to get that wrong for a whole nation to realize that your eight days had gone by nine days since last time the Sabbath would be very unintelligent, of that I think since the Sabbath keeping is so important to them.

I don't think they ever lost track of the seventh day site. I think that the week. I don't think you could lose a week or even a day from a week without it being noticed would actually just after one second, the day over a period of 200 years lost 24 hours, I heard what I said is I think people would notice if they lost 24 hours and hundreds used. Whether you're losing a second a day or not.

You just know you would notice that the 24 hours are living through is a second shorter but you certainly know if the night had come and gone or not. It certainly know if it's a whole day had passed her and even if you if the days got shorter and and and there's no reason to believe me ever did lose a second per day.

But if they did. That means that they should be shorter but there's to be the same days number of days between one Sabbath in the next because they know there are seven days and seven nights, and you can't miss that.

It's hard to miss night has come. Okay, let's talk to John from Dallas, Texas John, welcome to the narrow path telling I'm good thanks I will call her yesterday and I about how to someone trying to turn and had addiction due to child date, right call back budgeted because we didn't have much time. I did, I did suggest that and we only have less than five minutes now to so I know I know I I did suggest that I did suggest that you listen to my lectures on cultivating Christian character did not yet did you have a chance to listen and he was I didn't. I don't know on YouTube. It's our website.

The narrow path.com under topical lectures. That doesn't mean I don't talk to you guys talking on the air as well. It's just that is not 1/32 answer. I mean I could just say hey trust God and walk in script that will mean anything to flesh that out a little bit and I don't want to give a Bible verse that I was talking I don't think that they're a believer and around the question being their master and not believing them to get around it verse in the Bible I winning 27 and it didn't make me make sense of the same reference wrong sentences has he struck Israel as he struck those who struck him or has he been slain, according to the slaughter of those who were slain by him as a reference to Satan. There certainly I think they may be getting the wrong reference for what they think they probably thought of me I think the twenty okay okay so do you have any just in front of okay so were just about out of time on the for the visitor start playing.

But the 2020 17 says, and he saw a chariot with a pair of horsemen yet Sherry of donkeys and return of camels and he listened earnestly with great care. Yeah, I don't really see me about Satan. There so I guess I didn't. I think you gave your own reference, but a call early tomorrow call early tomorrow if you and we will have a chance to talk. I will not very hard and I know I appreciate you know every day that I and I think I'm 20 seconds. I do appreciate you going to call back tomorrow to talk to some more and short shrift.

Thank you for your comments and will we can talk tomorrow call early listening to the narrow path we are supporting you go to our website. The narrow path.com if you're interested in helping us down there.

Have a great evening and I will see some of you in the Phoenix area tonight was talking tomorrow